Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") is the name for California Civil Code §§ 1750 et seq. [1] The CLRA declares unlawful several "methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer". [2]
The term statute of frauds comes from the Statute of Frauds, an act of the Parliament of England (29 Chas. 2 c. 3) passed in 1677 (authored by Lord Nottingham assisted by Sir Matthew Hale, Sir Francis North and Sir Leoline Jenkins [2] and passed by the Cavalier Parliament), the long title of which is: An Act for Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries.
California Civil Code § 3369, enacted in 1872, was California's early unfair competition statute. It "addressed only the availability of civil remedies for business violations in cases of penalty, forfeiture, and criminal violation." [3] A 1933 amendment expanded the law to prohibit "any person [from] performing an act of unfair competition."
This is because of the statute of limitations on debt. However, the terms of these laws vary, by state and by type of debt. For example, federal student loan debt is not covered by the statute of ...
Legal treatises are one of the most important sources of secondary authority about California law. These texts are expressly recognized as a source of 'unwritten law' by California's Code of Civil Procedure. [15] The two most influential treatises are published by The Witkin Legal Institute Summary of California Law and The Rutter Group. [16]
Francesca Cheroutes lived in Denver, Colorado, and sought to take advantage of lower loan rates. Feds say her home was undervalued because of her race. Justice Department sues Rocket Mortgage ...
Lipka said Step Up had worked successfully with Shangri-La on four projects in Los Angeles using funds from the city's $1.2-billion Proposition HHH homeless housing bond.
Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that California's retroactive extension of the statute of limitations for sexual offenses committed against minors was an unconstitutional ex post facto law. [2]